(RNS) One of Germany’s largest Protestant regional churches has come under fire from other Christians for speaking out against efforts to convert Muslims just as tens of thousands of refugees from the Islamic world are streaming into the country.

In a new position paper, the Evangelical Church in the Rhineland says the passage in the Gospel of Matthew known as the Great Commission — “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” — does not mean Christians must try to convert others to their faith.

“A strategic mission to Islam or meeting Muslims to convert them threatens social peace and contradicts the spirit and mandate of Jesus Christ and is therefore to be firmly rejected,” the paper entitled “Pilgrim Fellowship and Witness in Dialogue with Muslims” argues.

This initiative by the mainline Rhineland church, published in early October, prompted a sharp response from Germany’s small evangelical movement.

“We declare firmly that the fundamental missionary task of Christians, namely to preach the Gospel of Jesus to others and invite them to follow it, cannot be given up,” said Hartmut Steeb, secretary general of the German Evangelical Alliance.

Germany expects to receive 800,000 to 1 million asylum seekers this year, mostly Muslims from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. The country’s Islamic minority could soon overtake France’s 5 million to become Europe’s largest. Chancellor Angela Merkel’s warm welcome to all refugees fleeing war and oppression has led to major political controversies at home and abroad.

Some fellow Christian Democrats accuse Merkel of recklessly flinging open Germany’s borders. Far-right groups protesting against a purported “Islamization” of German society are gathering support.

At the same time, hundreds of Muslims are reported to have converted this year. The fact that most are Iranians and Afghans, who could face the death penalty for apostasy back home if they were deported, has prompted some German Muslims to ask whether they are only converting to better their chances for political asylum.

The dividing line over proselytizing roughly runs between Germany’s mainline Protestant churches — mostly the Lutheran, Reformed and United groups — that make up about 30 percent of the population and its evangelical churches that account for only about 1 percent.

Both call themselves evangelical (evangelisch), with the latter sometimes using the term “evangelikanisch” to show the difference.

While most Christian churches have mobilized to help the newcomers, Roman Catholics and mainline Protestants have not spoken of the refugee crisis as an opportunity for evangelization.

By contrast, the Consortium of Evangelical Missions — an association linking mission activities of evangelical groups around the country — told its members in late September: “We have today the unique opportunity to introduce Jesus to countless people right here who have not yet heard the Good News.”

The consortium statement stressed that most refugees were Muslims who “have escaped Islamist terror (and) are deeply shocked at the inhuman barbarity committed in the name of their religion.” Many had never met a Christian and would ask why Europeans were so friendly to them “while their cousins in Arabia turn them away so heartlessly.”

The statement even pointed out that many Syrians were well-educated, hardworking and had a relatively low birth rate. “Fears about a ‘biological takeover’ do not correspond to the facts,” it stated.

Barbara Rudolph, head of mission work for the mainline Evangelical Church in the Rhineland, said the position paper had been misunderstood. “This is not about ending our missionary work,” she said.

In 2011, she noted, the World Council of Churches, the Vatican and the World Evangelical Alliance issued a joint code of conduct entitled “Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious World” that said Christians should avoid “inappropriate methods of exercising mission by resorting to deception and coercive means.”

Rudolph said the document by her regional church was part of a broader discussion within the Evangelical Church in Germany, the country’s main national association of Protestant churches, based on the 2011 code of conduct.

“We want to live in a way that makes others curious about our faith,” she said. “Whoever wants to become a Christian can be baptized.”

This new approach to the Great Commission has come under criticism even from within Rudolph’s church. Comments about it on her blog are mostly negative. “This new understanding of mission … excludes the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It mixes up law and Gospel by arguing that a certain ethical behavior amounts to missionary work,” wrote one pastor.

Another mission official for the Rhineland church said the document seemed to give up the very idea of spreading the Christian faith. “I base my life on the fundamental truth of the Gospel,” Pastor Christoph Noetzel told the independent Christian news service Idea. “I’d like to do it in the future as well, without it being relativized by my church.”

An official for mission work with the Evangelical Church in Germany, Hans-Hermann Pompe, told Idea: “If someone concludes from this document that it’s all the same to Protestants whether they follow Jesus or Mohammad, its authors should not be surprised.”

73 Comments

The Great Commission is to be obeyed regardless of circumstances! Only remembering that teaching comes first, then baptism. All potential converts, whether religious or not, are free to accept or reject the truth of Christianity without fear of reprisal from any source.

Imagine that! A directive not to act obnoxiously in order to bolster numbers in one’s congregation being “scandalous”.

Christians seldom bother to reflect on how offensive their conduct can be when trying to evangelize. As with many act by Christians, ends justify means. As long as one claims God approves it, any act is excused.

Sometimes introducing people to Jesus Christ comes through showing Christian love and compassion, which is what this church appears to be doing. The Great Commission of Christ calls Christians to teach and baptize. But how did Christ teach? In some circumstances, he used words. But in many cases, he taught through deed. When we are confronted with the refugee, the hungry, the homeless, the sick, the afraid I think deed may be the best way to approach the situation, as this church is doing.

It is the atonement of Jesus Christ that saves us. The message of the cross is what Christians are to carry to the world. It is our eternal destiny that really matters.Jesus commanded it. That should settle it for any believer. Receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. Turn away from sin and rebellion, and abide in Him through His Word and by His Holy Spirit. God Bless

And who determines what is an offensive conduct?
Some years ago, the then Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad openly declared before a gathering of Muslim nations that Jews rule the world by inventing socialism, communism, human rights and democracy (see point 39 and 51 here: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/20/1066502121884.html).
Evidently human rights and democracy could be viewed as offensive to some Muslims. Therefore no one is to mention them to Muslims?

This isn’t just the Islamic view of what’s offensive. Imagine for a moment that you just had to abandon your home, and then someone tries to convert you to Islam. Probably thinking it was all part of Allah’s plan.

So do they need to be cleansed of their former religion before they can become German citizens? Not everyone is going to accept Christianity, so it makes more sense to establish a consistent sense of secular morality free of theocratic thinking. That way they aren’t forced to relinquish their culture, yet they won’t have as much of the hamrful baggage.

Of course they will change the society forever. Prejudice and panic figure greatly into the objections to immigrants in general: “Yellow Peril”, “Brown Peril”, “Jewish Question”…

Countries which set their national identity on race, religion and ethnicity always have trouble accepting the immigrants they invite in. The idea of having to break the assumptions of what a citizen of that country looks like is difficult for some. But it is necessary.

There is nothing wrong with inviting individuals to become Christian, provided it is done without coercion. Islam was spread through conversions from tactics that included invitation, economic/social opportunities and outright force. Many of the refugees are descended from people who were Christians in Syria, Iraq or other places, but through various tactics converted to Islam due to Arab and Turkish conquers. I agree with Mr. Clark’s statement.

Imagine for a moment that you just had to abandon your home, and then someone tries to convert you to “a consistent sense of secular morality free of theocratic thinking” (what you are advocating in your comments below). Obnoxious as well?

Not everyone will accept your ‘consistent sense of secular morality free of theocratic thinking’. Then what?
This Australian based Muslim is seemingly opposed to secular values such as singing the Australian national anthem and the Australian citizenship pledge:
“Liberal values are imposed through systematic attempts to “reform” Islam. The most intimate beliefs and values of Muslims are determined, approved and disapproved by the state. In return, they are not only to be grateful for the freedom of religion they are afforded but also to celebrate it. This imposition of values is manifest in things like the insistence by government ministers that Muslim children sing the national anthem. It is manifest, institutionally, in things like the citizenship pledge, which reads, “I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share”.http://www.smh.com.au/comment/the-muslim-bogeyman-is-a-tool-for-the-cheap-politics-of-fear-20151101-gkny43.html

Somehow I think the reverse is more likely to happen.
Australia’s most famous Islamic State convert so far is/was an 18 year old youth named Jake Bilardi, who was raised in an atheist family without any religion. He on his own volition became a Muslim convert and all the way into a jihadist.
The French organisation CPDSI which researches native white French nationals who have become Muslim militants discovered in one survey that 80% of the came from atheist families:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30119868

Secular “obnoxiousness” like defending religious freedom for all people, not just the dominant majority and extolling education and rational thinking. That sort of thing welcomed by most people.

The only people who don’t like secularism are those who want their religion entangled with government. Those who want to force others to believe or act in accordance with their specific sectarian faith.

The same thing which happens when everyone doesn’t agree with your religious based arbitrary sense of morality.

You set ground rules to avoid discrimination and attacks on civil liberties and you try to be civil with one another. Our Constitution has created a great blueprint as to how that sort of thing is best done.

Real religious freedom and living in a heterogeneous society is something Europeans (and Australians) are very new to, but are old hat in America. They are going through what we did a century or two ago. Virtually no other nation has been as successful in integrating different cultures and faiths as the US has.

Religious freedom must be not only not entangling religion with the state but also free exercise of religion. Most other countries do not really get that. Most developed nations are just learning this now.

@Larry
“..defending religious freedom for all people, not just the dominant majority and extolling education and rational thinking. That sort of thing welcomed by most people.”
DO you defend Kim Davis then?

“The only people who don’t like secularism are those who want their religion entangled with government.”
No because you secularist people have consistently demonstrated more intolerance and bloodshed. The French Revolution and Pol Pot (both very secular) comes to mind.

“Our Constitution..”
If you mean the American Constitution it’s irrelevant to most non-Americans, including me.

“something Europeans (and Australians)…”
So now you presume other nations must adopt your ways? What pathetic arrogance.

“Virtually no other nation has been as successful in integrating different cultures and faiths as the US has.”
Like what? The reported ‘ethnic cleansing’ of black neighbourhoods in LA by violent Latino gangs some years ago? The black rioters during the Rodney King riots who for some reason targeted Asian businesses? The suspected widespread clandestine practice of FGM/female circumcision amongst certain immigrant cultures in the US? This documentary excerpt (assuming it’s not a joke or being taken out of context) which shows some groups practicing bridal kidnapping in the US?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5PPJcR0RBs

“As the “horseshoe theory” goes the more extreme views are, the closer they resemble each other.”
You could be right on this one. There is no real difference between fundamentalist Muslims and obnoxious secularists such as you.
Both of you regard Christians as enemies.
Both of you would like to see Christianity suppressed or eliminated outright.
Both of you would do anything, from legal processes to outright fighting to achieve your goals.
Both claim some form of moral high ground. You claim some kind of ‘religious freedom’ whilst the claim is often made that Islam is supposedly tolerant.

“You saying that current residents of the US and European nations are being subject to genocidal attacks by immigrants. Facts say otherwise.”
Just wait. Then again it may already started with the Charlie Hebdo attack and the Rotterham child abuse scandal (perpetrated by mostly Muslim Pakistani gangs).
Alternatively consider the situation in West Papua/Irian Jaya. The native people there have been overwhelmed by the Indonesian government who encouraged the mast migration of enormous numbers of Javanese people (with a completely different culture) to take over the area.

Theocrats. People who want a right to attack others who are not of the same faith as themselves. The type of people who are driving these Syrians to leave their country. The type of people who want to enact sectarian discrimination.

She also has nothing to do with religious freedom. She is exactly the opposite of religious freedom and secular government. Trying to impose her religious views on the operations of government. ISIS-lite.

“The French Revolution and Pol Pot (both very secular) comes to mind”

Pol Pot and Jacobins weren’t secularists. They extolled state religion of the personality cult. Try again. You are really getting into Inigo Montoya territory here (“you use that word, but I don’t think it means what you think it means”)

But James Madison was a secularist. So was Roger Williams, William Penn, Thomas Jefferson and the people who ratified the 1st Amendment, you seem to hate so much. Secularism is the separation of church and state AND free exercise of religion. You can’t have one without the other.

“If you mean the American Constitution it’s irrelevant to most non-Americans, including me.”

Hence you do not understand how secular government really works. The USA was the first secular government. Secular means 2 things:
1. Freedom to worship AND
2. Guaranteeing that freedom to worship by ensuring government is not entangled with religion.

Maybe English is your 2nd language. You do not seem to understand the meaning of the word “secular” despite your constant use of the term. I suggest you do some reading about Roger Williams and William Penn. Then do a little homework on the American Constitution’s 1st Amendment.

RMW, try comparing the LA riots to the Balkan conflicts, where the term “ethnic cleansing” came from. People living side by side with each other deciding to commit genocide. Death camps and everything. Europeans don’t get heterogeneous societies yet.

Those obnoxious secularists with their desire TO PROTECT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OF ALL. Yeah that has a lot to do with fundamentalists. /sarcasm.

At this point its clear you have no clue what the word secular means. I am not sure if you are just trying to be obnoxiously offensive or are just ignorant.

When Christians attack the civil liberties of others, they deserve as much scorn and opposition as when any other religious group does it.

If you think that religious freedom for all is somehow repressing or attacking your Christian faith, it speaks badly for your faith.

I have moral high ground here because I am extolling civil liberties for all instead of supporting dictatorship of fundamentalist religion. Whereas you want to attack those of other faiths for being different, I support their right to worship as they please.

As with all religious belief, your right to worship ends where you try to harm others. Contrast that to people who cause mayhem in God’s name.

@Larry
“So why do you hate religious freedom so much RMW?”
Because it is a nonsense statement made up by obnoxious secularists such as you. The fact that you oppose Kim Davis shows it all.

“Pol Pot and Jacobins weren’t secularists. They extolled state religion of the personality cult.”
Not mutually exclusive. When you try to eliminate the natural tendency to worship God, you will end up worshipping humans.

@Jack
“..as Sweden and other advanced countries also lead the way in. Belief in deities and religious myths from backward cultures of thousands of years ago is merely for the unenlightened.”
The same Sweden that seems determined to import huge numbers of Muslims in? Sounds more like an Islamic future. Secularism is a suicidal loser.

“I have moral high ground here because I am extolling civil liberties for all..”
No you don’t you are attacking Christians.

“your right to worship ends where you try to harm others.”
Your secularism ends when you try to limit or attack Christians.

“Contrast that to people who cause mayhem in God’s name.”
Yet you seem to be very supportive of Islamic immigration. Islam, arguably the one religion that’s the most geared against all other non-believers.
But I expect no less. As I said earlier, there is no real difference between obnoxious secularists and fundamentalist Muslims. Both see Christianity as an enemy to be…